"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

[cvanwey]

I'm not a generic theist. I said above that I was Anglican, so you're actually breaking the rules of the forum now by inexplicably calling me non-Christian.

You asked me what revelation I was talking about when I mentioned enduring world religions, so I mentioned the major ones. Skeptics tend to take the approach that there are a billion possible religions to choose between, which is really very silly. If you're a theist, there are only a small handful.

I think we got our wires crossed a little bit. In post #464 you stated "As a theist, I think that it's highly probable that at least one of the world's divine revelations is true, and that it would have to be one that has survived."

For which I asked: "Which 'revelation' in particular? And how so?"

I wasn't sure if you were referring to them all as probable, or just the ones from Christianity. Okay, now I do

In this particular context, yes.

Do tell? How does uniqueness alone render higher plausibility of truth in it's claim(s)?

The Bible was written and does exist. This is a strange non-sequitur, since I'm not sure why you think that someone who considers the historicity of the New Testament important would somehow not care if the Bible didn't exist at all.

You asked why I 'lead with the Bible'? Well, the Bible is where all the claims are based.

In this particular context, yes.

Do tell? How does a story-line/claim, being more unique, alone render a higher probability to truth in it's claim(s)?

An assertion is not an obsession. Mentioning an assertion in practically every other post, on the other hand, is an obsession.

Well, if a resurrection did not happen, is Christianity still true? I would hasten to answer for you

We are again back to virtually the beginning of this thread. And you and I both seem in agreement, which seems rare. We really cannot prove a resurrection, now can we?

So the 64K dollar question remains... Why grant any more credence to this asserted/claimed God, verses another?

I am. But as I said, the debate goes on and on and on. There are counterpoints to the points below, and counterpoints to the counterpoints, and counterpoints to the counterpoints of the counterpoints. There are aspects of the debate that are only really accessible in Spanish and Italian, because the relics are in Spain and Italy.

I find the whole thing a bit dizzying, but if you want to really get into the debate, you need to read from more than just the skeptical perspective. (Not sure if it's a good idea to get into the debate, but it can be kind of fun.)

I honestly could not see how? For me personally anyways... As soon as I read that 3 independent labs found all material to merely date to around 1300 AD-ish, cased closed... Further, even if the material dated in the appropriate time, and the cloth was even proven to be from [Jesus], all this would verify, for me anyways, is that He was around, which I do not dispute anyways

The question is, did He rise again?

Are you even familiar with these particular prophecies?

Do I need to be? Which one seems most intriguing? And why?

How does that have anything to do with the dating of the Gospels?

How could it not? You already admitted that the one 'prophecy' may not amount to much. But even if the Gospels were written only a few decades after His death, or even less, legend tends to spread very fast. And further, even if we had the 'originals', why must they be 100% accurate to begin with?

 

[Silmarien]

Do tell? How does uniqueness alone render higher plausibility of truth in it's claim(s)?

As I said before, it depends on the context. Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't, but I've said that this particular reasoning involves something of an extended ontological argument. If you've granted the ontological argument, then a maximally good being (God) necessarily exists. If we grant that divine revelation is expected, given theism, then we are looking for a revelation that actually depicts a God that is maximally good. I think the Gospel provides a pretty radical picture of what divine goodness looks like, so I find it considerably more compelling than competing narratives which strike me as less maximally good.

You asked why I 'lead with the Bible'? Well, the Bible is where all the claims are based.

I never asked why you lead with the Bible. You're welcome to do whatever you want, but if you're going to ask how people get from generic theism to Christianity, you're going to get answers that fall outside of the box you've chosen.

Well, if a resurrection did not happen, is Christianity still true? I would hasten to answer for you

We are again back to virtually the beginning of this thread. And you and I both seem in agreement, which seems rare. We really cannot prove a resurrection, now can we?

So the 64K dollar question remains... Why grant any more credence to this asserted/claimed God, verses another?

This is the question I've been trying to respond to, and you just keep on writing it off as irrelevant and demanding evidence for the Resurrection.

I honestly could not see how? For me personally anyways... As soon as I read that 3 independent labs found all material to merely date to around 1300 AD-ish, cased closed... Further, even if the material dated in the appropriate time, and the cloth was even proven to be from [Jesus], all this would verify, for me anyways, is that He was around, which I do not dispute anyways

Oh, the actual argument with the Shroud of Turin is that there was some sort of Resurrection energy that left his imprint on it. So yeah, if it were authentic, it could serve as physical evidence.

As for the dating, given that a good deal of mending has been done on the fabric, people argue that the fragment tested had more recent material, throwing off the results. The whole debate is wild, and I don't really know which side is more rabid.

Do I need to be? Which one seems most intriguing? And why?

Concerning Daniel? I find the dating controversy intriguing, since if the commonly accepted late date is incorrect, we're in the realm of almost irrefutable authentic prophecy. Most intriguing are the Messianic prophecies in it, of course, regardless of when it was written.

How could it not? You already admitted that the one 'prophecy' may not amount to much. But even if the Gospels were written only a few decades after His death, or even less, legend tends to spread very fast. And further, even if we had the 'originals', why must they be 100% accurate to begin with?

What? You think that even if the Gospels were written before the Siege of Jerusalem, prophecies concerning the destruction of the Temple would be a result of later legends, before the destruction of said Temple even happened? How does that make sense?

 

[cvanwey]

As I said before, it depends on the context. Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't, but I've said that this particular reasoning involves something of an extended ontological argument. If you've granted the ontological argument, then a maximally good being (God) necessarily exists. If we grant that divine revelation is expected, given theism, then we are looking for a revelation that actually depicts a God that is maximally good. I think the Gospel provides a pretty radical picture of what divine goodness looks like, so I find it considerably more compelling than competing narratives which strike me as less maximally good.

I'm aware you stated, prior, 'it depends on the context.'

But again, even if I grant every argument for god's necessary existence, without demonstrating evidence that such a story even happened, (i.e.) true self sacrifice, leading to a necessary resurrection etc etc etc, one must place the cart before the horse. Meaning, already assume Jesus was more than a mortal. I see nothing more than a Book filled with legendary prospects thus far?

Even if I were to concede the 'moral argument', we still need to establish [which] god is THE God? Each and every claimed version of god(s) has their own distinctive set or 'moral absolutes'. But until we acknowledge the existence of this 'God', you are stuck, at best it seems, with an a priori.

If it should turn out that another God was revealed to instead exist, maybe 'maximally good' means something you do not currently agree with?.?.?. If another creator god exists, and it turns out not to be what you think, or perceive as good, logic, other, none of it would really matter too much. We would all be subject to this god's devices; whether it be 'mercy', 'torture', other.

I never asked why you lead with the Bible. You're welcome to do whatever you want, but if you're going to ask how people get from generic theism to Christianity, you're going to get answers that fall outside of the box you've chosen.

Maybe you did not ask, but you made it sound like I'm possibly using a flawed methodology...

In post #463, you stated "You keep on assuming that the starting place is somehow trying to prove the Bible"

Seems as though it is reasonable to start here; as this is where all claims are asserted, in Writing. And all the answers I get, will likely be in reference, or 'backed', in some form or another, by one of these chosen verses/writings. So yea, leading with the Bible might be a descent place to start.

And if I should find some discovery, which does not align with my reality, is it 'logical' to continue 'faith' above and beyond 'logic/reason'? Or, is it instead 'wise' to discard this Book, just the same as I likely would for all other books of claims, which fail the same test(s)? Thus far, seems fairly safe to propose deism/theism, and remain their until 'something better comes along'?.?.?

This is the question I've been trying to respond to, and you just keep on writing it off as irrelevant and demanding evidence for the Resurrection.

Not sure what/where this happened exactly? But at the end of the day, for [me] any ways, if I am to accept the tenets of Christianity, at all, than a resurrection is necessary; according to the assertions of 'Paul' - writer of nearly half the NT. CAN this be done 'reasonably'?

If so, by all means... If you cannot, will not, or feel this is not the most important thing to demonstrate, then maybe we just need to part ways now, as the rest might be futile to address?

Call me 'obsessed'; call me what-you-will

Oh, the actual argument with the Shroud of Turin is that there was some sort of Resurrection energy that left his imprint on it. So yeah, if it were authentic, it could serve as physical evidence.

As for the dating, given that a good deal of mending has been done on the fabric, people argue that the fragment tested had more recent material, throwing off the results. The whole debate is wild, and I don't really know which side is more rabid.

Yeah, not interested. If this is one of the best pieces of evidence for a resurrection, then God did not do a very 'good' job, IMHO

Concerning Daniel? I find the dating controversy intriguing, since if the commonly accepted late date is incorrect, we're in the realm of almost irrefutable authentic prophecy. Most intriguing are the Messianic prophecies in it, of course, regardless of when it was written.

Can you please cite the verses in question? And how they are related to Jesus? And once you do this, demonstrate that Jesus did actually rise from the dead?

What? You think that even if the Gospels were written before the Siege of Jerusalem, prophecies concerning the destruction of the Temple would be a result of later legends, before the destruction of said Temple even happened? How does that make sense?

No. You, yourself, opted to possibly discard this facet. You stated "Though as far as I'm aware, it was fairly common to prophesy about that, so I'm not sure it means much."

What I'm saying is that the Gospels speak of many things, like a 'magical man', whom 'rose from the dead.' Stuff possibly made of legend.

 

[Silmarien]

But again, even if I grant every argument for god's necessary existence, without demonstrating evidence that such a story even happened, (i.e.) true self sacrifice, leading to a necessary resurrection etc etc etc, one must place the cart before the horse. Meaning, already assume Jesus was more than a mortal. I see nothing more than a Book filled with legendary prospects thus far?

I don't think you have to start by assuming that Jesus was more than mortal. The argument is actually the reverse--if you think that the types of doctrines associated with Christianity point to a more compelling picture of God, then you're in a situation where at the very least, something like Christianity is likely to be true. If you think that something like Christianity is true, and only one religion is making the type of historical claims that match up, then that is the religion that you ought to take seriously.

This is why I don't really care about the Resurrection. I don't think there's an answer to that question, whereas you actually can assess the issue of whether orthodox Christian doctrines, particularly Incarnational theology, are supported by the text of the New Testament. If they're not, then you can fight about the Resurrection until the end of time without coming any closer to having a compelling reason to accept Christian theology.

If it should turn out that another God was revealed to instead exist, maybe 'maximally good' means something you do not currently agree with?.?.?. If another creator god exists, and it turns out not to be what you think, or perceive as good, logic, other, none of it would really matter too much. We would all be subject to this god's devices; whether it be 'mercy', 'torture', other.

If you accept the ontological argument, this is ruled out. The whole thing is predicated on the idea that our intuitions about goodness actually do match up to reality. This is why you can't skip the step of demonstrating theism and go straight to revelation--the majority of the serious questions are involved in the first rather than the second question.

And if I should find some discovery, which does not align with my reality, is it 'logical' to continue 'faith' above and beyond 'logic/reason'? Or, is it instead 'wise' to discard this Book, just the same as I likely would for all other books of claims, which fail the same test(s)? Thus far, seems fairly safe to propose deism/theism, and remain their until 'something better comes along'?.?.?

You haven't genuinely proposed deism/theism. If you did, you would need to deal with the question of whether divine revelation is the sort of thing to be expected, as well as the possibility that something better has come along. This whole "I should discard the Bible because I discard other holy books" rhetoric needs to stop, because a theist should be investigating all of them rather than none.

Since you are actually an atheist, yes, it is more logical to reject all claims of revelation, given that none of it aligns with your reality. If the hypothetical here became true and you did become convinced that arguments for theism succeeded, that would change, but that is not currently the case.

Not sure what/where this happened exactly? But at the end of the day, for [me] any ways, if I am to accept the tenets of Christianity, at all, than a resurrection is necessary; according to the assertions of 'Paul' - writer of nearly half the NT. CAN this be done 'reasonably'?

If so, by all means... If you cannot, will not, or feel this is not the most important thing to demonstrate, then maybe we just need to part ways now, as the rest might be futile to address?

I don't mind parting ways, but I already know you're going to continue to insinuate that there's no reason for anyone to ever accept the claims of Christianity if they don't think the Resurrection has been demonstrated. This means that you are saying that a Christian cannot be a methodological naturalist about history, which is false.

Can you please cite the verses in question? And how they are related to Jesus? And once you do this, demonstrate that Jesus did actually rise from the dead?

Daniel 7. I didn't know anything about these particular prophecies until I came across them in a book by Brant Pitre, who has a Q&A here on this and other issues, if you're interested: Doubting Jesus: A Catholic Biblical Scholar Responds to Skeptical Questions

No. You, yourself, opted to possibly discard this facet. You stated "Though as far as I'm aware, it was fairly common to prophesy about that, so I'm not sure it means much."

That doesn't mean I don't think the Gospels are significantly earlier than critical scholarship would have it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Meanwhile, here we are on page 25. The Christians have been asked to justify their belief in the Christian God. But they seem unable to do so. There was one little attempt, way back when, to post an article from a creationist website.
Is this the best that Christians have to offer? Is this the "evidence that demands a verdict"?
"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."
But it seems that here, on the Christian Apologetics forum, there are no logical reasons to believe in God; no proofs from the Bible; no prophecies fulfilled, no miracles reliably attested to.
Just "I know that it's true." Nothing more.

 

[A_Thinker]

Just "I know that it's true." Nothing more.

Yep ... clearly, that was all that was said ...

 

[MrsFoundit]

Yep ... clearly, that was all that was said ...

It actually was not said. Some things have been, but not that.

 

[A_Thinker]

It actually was not said. Some things have been, but not that.

The sarcasm related to my statement was implicit in nature ...

 

[A_Thinker]

Not sure what/where this happened exactly? But at the end of the day, for [me] any ways, if I am to accept the tenets of Christianity, at all, than a resurrection is necessary; according to the assertions of 'Paul' - writer of nearly half the NT. CAN this be done 'reasonably'?

Some reasonable considerations of the Christian belief in God …

· At its base level, Christianity posits God as an advanced alien intelligence, which seeded life, including humanity, upon Earth.

· Unlike Deism, Christianity posits that God remains involved with His creation, visiting its inhabitants periodically … in various corporate and individual human contexts.

· Christianity also posits that there is purpose to the Creator’s dealings with Earth. The Christian God desires that humankind ADVANCE, particularly in the moral arena. Such advancement makes the risk of self-annihilation more and more remote … and guards the development of the intelligent life on the planet.

· Thus, the Christian God espouses LOVE for one another as a highest ethic.

· The Christian God desires to influence, but not FORCE such moral development as has been described, and so, limits its interaction to a few significant human encounters. (Shades of Star Trek’s First Directive)

· In these interactions, … the advanced level of the representatives of God is notable, which includes events which are, properly described as marvels (including restoration of life) to the affected representatives of humanity.

 

[MrsFoundit]

The sarcasm related to my statement was implicit in nature ...

Yes, I clicked Winner based on figuring it was sarcasm.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It actually was not said. Some things have been, but not that.

Actually, that's just about all that you've said. You've spent the whole thread saying it. Every time you post without offering any reason to think that your God exists, while asserting that He does, that's what you've done.

But do please prove me wrong. All you have to do is post evidence for your God's existence.

Or, if you can't, just say so:
"I believe that the Christian God exists, but I acknowledge there is no reason I can give a nonbeliever for why he or she should believe."

Or take option, C, and continue to duck the question.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't think you have to start by assuming that Jesus was more than mortal. The argument is actually the reverse--if you think that the types of doctrines associated with Christianity point to a more compelling picture of God, then you're in a situation where at the very least, something like Christianity is likely to be true. If you think that something like Christianity is true, and only one religion is making the type of historical claims that match up, then that is the religion that you ought to take seriously.

I disagree. Even if I grant every argument for God's necessary existence, I could read the Bible, and rule it out, merely by means of finding things within it which [do not align with (my) reality - both 'morally' and/or physically]. This is how some fall away from the Christian faith, but maybe still remain a theist/deist/other/etc for a while, or even indefinitely.

My own perception of 'maximally good' would not be validated/other until we are aware of which God is the real God?

At the end of the day, many of the God arguments go back to the same fundamental <unanswered> question... (i.e.) Okay, which God is the real God?

If we cannot 'prove' revelation of this God, via a resurrection, as asserted by 'Paul', then again, you are stuck with 'faith' - whatever definition you wish to imply... And I trust I do not need to tell you, that 'faith' can be 'successfully' applied to about any idea or concept, just about equally

Again, some are left with an a priori, to continue in belief of these specific assertions, in spite of conflicting 'evidence' to the contrary.

Which may beg the ultimate question, or presented dichotomy... Jesus was more than a man (or) Jesus was not more than a man...

Was this Jesus character more than a man..? Or, was He too, just a part of legend, lore, etc etc etc; just like the many others prior and after? Which answer is more likely? - To be continued....

This is why I don't really care about the Resurrection. I don't think there's an answer to that question, whereas you actually can assess the issue of whether orthodox Christian doctrines, particularly Incarnational theology, are supported by the text of the New Testament. If they're not, then you can fight about the Resurrection until the end of time without coming any closer to having a compelling reason to accept Christian theology.

But again, if Jesus did not rise, none of it actually matters. Ultimate prophecy is not fulfilled And if you admit this cannot be 'proven/validated/other', beyond a reasonable doubt, but it did truly happen, then to condemn humans for following evidence consistently, like they do in all other facets of their life, and to expect some humans to grant special circumstances for [this] case, is basically asking humans to invoke fallacious reasoning. God can do anything apparently. God favors invalid reasoning, based upon scanty evidence, versus proving something more substantial. And before you even ask... I don't know exactly what that 'sufficient' evidence might be, but God would.

If you accept the ontological argument, this is ruled out. The whole thing is predicated on the idea that our intuitions about goodness actually do match up to reality. This is why you can't skip the step of demonstrating theism and go straight to revelation--the majority of the serious questions are involved in the first rather than the second question.

Then I could still reject Christianity specifically. My idea of 'goodness' does not line up with 'Christianity.' Too many 'moral' assertions, as well as assertions about physical reality do not appear to match with [my] reality.

You haven't genuinely proposed deism/theism. If you did, you would need to deal with the question of whether divine revelation is the sort of thing to be expected, as well as the possibility that something better has come along. This whole "I should discard the Bible because I discard other holy books" rhetoric needs to stop, because a theist should be investigating all of them rather than none.

Since you are actually an atheist, yes, it is more logical to reject all claims of revelation, given that none of it aligns with your reality. If the hypothetical here became true and you did become convinced that arguments for theism succeeded, that would change, but that is not currently the case.

Disagree. I only reject (this) one because of lack in evidence. Seems likely more probable the works of legend and lore, verses 'reality.' Even if I were to discard all 'moral' disagreements, 'conflicting' assertions, which do not align with my physical reality, the presented story still has too many 'holes' to align with actually being 'true'? At least for me anyways. This is one of the largest reasons why I'm a skeptic, at best.

I don't mind parting ways, but I already know you're going to continue to insinuate that there's no reason for anyone to ever accept the claims of Christianity if they don't think the Resurrection has been demonstrated. This means that you are saying that a Christian cannot be a methodological naturalist about history, which is false.

Disagree. You can accept Jesus was born, lived, preached, and was killed. Above and beyond this alone, all I'm saying is one must be consistent, when evaluating the likelihood of <these> claimed events as being true, verses 'untrue'.

Daniel 7. I didn't know anything about these particular prophecies until I came across them in a book by Brant Pitre, who has a Q&A here on this and other issues, if you're interested: Doubting Jesus: A Catholic Biblical Scholar Responds to Skeptical Questions

Not interested at the moment. But, if you care to share the most provocative one, and how it relates to anything other than nothing, please demonstrate accordingly

That doesn't mean I don't think the Gospels are significantly earlier than critical scholarship would have it.

My point is the Gospels could have even been written 20-30 years sooner than thought, and it would not matter. Legend, fabrication, other can spread quite swiftly. And again, even if we got our hands on the originals, how does this validate they were ever 'true' to begin with? And by true, I mean anything above and beyond the natural?

 

[cvanwey]

Some reasonable considerations of the Christian belief in God …

· At its base level, Christianity posits God as an advanced alien intelligence, which seeded life, including humanity, upon Earth.

· Unlike Deism, Christianity posits that God remains involved with His creation, visiting its inhabitants periodically … in various corporate and individual human contexts.

· Christianity also posits that there is purpose to the Creator’s dealings with Earth. The Christian God desires that humankind ADVANCE, particularly in the moral arena. Such advancement makes the risk of self-annihilation more and more remote … and guards the development of the intelligent life on the planet.

· Thus, the Christian God espouses LOVE for one another as a highest ethic.

· The Christian God desires to influence, but not FORCE such moral development as has been described, and so, limits its interaction to a few significant human encounters. (Shades of Star Trek’s First Directive)

· In these interactions, … the advanced level of the representatives of God is notable, which includes events which are, properly described as marvels (including restoration of life) to the affected representatives of humanity.

Nothing in this response seems to pose evidence that Jesus resurrected from the dead. If I am to even consider Jesus, as a candidate, for anything [above and beyond] a preacher, whom martyred Himself, I need evidence that He rose from the dead.

And once you can prove this, I can then evaluate whether or not I wish to follow Him

Do you have anything?

 

[A_Thinker]

Nothing in this response seems to pose evidence that Jesus resurrected from the dead. If I am to even consider Jesus, as a candidate, for anything [above and beyond] a preacher, whom martyred Himself, I need evidence that He rose from the dead.

And once you can prove this, I can then evaluate whether or not I wish to follow Him

Do you have anything?

At the very least, he appeared to rise from the dead.

We can see similar marvels (via medicine) today ...

 

[cvanwey]

At the very least, he appeared to rise from the dead.

'At the very least'? Do tell? How do we know this?

We can see similar marvels (via medicine) today ...

I have absolutely no idea how this statement is relevant?

 

[A_Thinker]

'At the very least'? Do tell? How do we know this?

You wouldn't know it unless you had seen it, ... but 12 men died martyr's deaths who would have known better if it weren't true.

Not one had an alternative testimony ...

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You wouldn't know it unless you had seen it, ... but 12 men died martyr's deaths who would have known better if it weren't true.

Not one had an alternative testimony ...

Who were these twelve men, and how did they die?

 

[A_Thinker]

Who were these twelve men, and how did they die?

King Herod had James “put to death with the sword,”.

Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy.

Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound.

John faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome.

James, the brother of Jesus, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. He was thrown from the southeast pinnacle of the temple (over a hundred feet down) when he refused to deny his faith in Christ

Bartholomew, also known as Nathanael, was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed in present-day Turkey and was martyred for his preaching in Armenia, being flayed to death by a whip.

Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Greece. After seven soldiers whipped Andrew severely, they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony.

The apostle Thomas was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church there.

Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded.

The apostle Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero in Rome in AD 67.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

King Herod had James “put to death with the sword,”.

Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy.

Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound.

John faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome.

James, the brother of Jesus, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. He was thrown from the southeast pinnacle of the temple (over a hundred feet down) when he refused to deny his faith in Christ

Bartholomew, also known as Nathanael, was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed in present-day Turkey and was martyred for his preaching in Armenia, being flayed to death by a whip.

Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Greece. After seven soldiers whipped Andrew severely, they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony.

The apostle Thomas was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church there.

Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded.

The apostle Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero in Rome in AD 67.

Thank you for that informative reply. So would it be accurate to say your argument is this: the fact that people died for the same of the Christian religion shows that it must be true, because if it wasn't, they would not have died for the same of a lie?

Is that your argument? Or would you like to amend or restate it if you feel I have missed the point?

 

[muichimotsu]

Introducing the claim that truth is only our best attempts to explain the world as opposed to something we perceive because it does also exist beyond our perception is equally destructive to discussion. If we know things exist because we perceive them, whatever is perceived may exist, including an external source of truth. If we do not know things exist because we perceive them, truth, the world and explanations do not necessarily exist.

Something can exist beyond our perception in a sense as an objective without all things necessarily applying to that description, particularly those of an abstract nature that requires human thought in the first place. You cannot claim, for instance, that numbers are an independent and objective existence in the same way we can say rocks and trees are.

Whatever is perceived does not exist merely because of perception, that's where you're making a leap in logic. And truth is not a substantive thing, it's descriptive rather than prescriptive notions that try to force a perspective onto things that has little to no basis in reality.

I never claimed we didn't assess things by perception, you're the one seemingly suggesting that merely because we perceive it, it must exist independently of us rather than considering that some things necessarily require a mind to come into existence, like numbers or even things like the agreement we generally have that other minds exist, both requiring that conceptualization rather than being something that comes about naturally independent of a mind (rocks forming)